Great video. This really helped me clarify my own thoughts on the matter as I have a few feminist friends and I feel torn as I support their goals, while at the same time often questioning their motivations for these goals. I have had discussions go in endless circles about how this be "patriarchy" while so many women benefit from the current structure. The patent answer seems to be "patriarchy hurts men too", except for one feminist who considers that an anti-feminist statement!
if hillary clinton had got into power it wouldnt mean we would have matriarchy..... thats very simplistic, its not about women or men in power its about power over! we need power from within. thats matriarchy!
I think women are sexually opressed. We are limited to erotic literature as the acceptable form of pornography for women. And it sucks. If anyone can point me in the direction of some decent porn for hetro women? Because I feel like our society just doesn't cater for female pleasure like it does for men. ps, Mr1001 you are crazy hot, and it aint the emotional appeal doin it for me, not anything about your personality either.
Wait a minute. Men are turned on by flashing a body part, but women need some kind of emotional display as a turn on? Havn't you seen male strippers? We like body parts too. And when you say "feminists think this" please don't over generalise because there are a lot of different perspectives within feminism.
Try also to make a (historio/sociological) of the use of the word misandry , since when it is used by who and for what purpose. I'm actually a guy who like women non alienated or stuck in a role or a posture impose to them. I work with mostly uneducated people and for those jock calling someone a girl is a insult, maybe because off a superiority complex I dont know? My sister is submissive to her husband not because of capitalism but because of culture. Sorry I hate to use my personal experience
You should read more Emma Goldman, Alexandra Kollontaï, Christine Delphy and try to understand what they say. I was also clueless about feminism, anarchism and communism I made a effort to be objective(I know it's no possible to be completely) when reading and not hold to my believes but open my mind to their perspectives. Try a sociologic approach to those question scientific method can help too. Sorry my English isn't perfect.
right from about 30 seconds - your point about female bosses - i think shows that you misunderstand the concept of patriarchy. again, i'll reiterate what i've said elsewhere. patriarchy isn't about male bosses, or male politicians. it's not about 'men ruling women' or 'men dominating women' it's a lot more complex than that. it's about the way that our culture socially constructs gender to set up an implicit hierarchy between what is culturally 'masculine' and what is culturally 'feminine'
your 'alternative explanation' doesn't dispute/refute anything that feminists (and when i say this, to be clearer, i mean poststructuralist feminism) actually are arguing. again, please read the Allan G. Johnson piece i linked you to as i think it'll clear up some of your misconceptions. i know i sound like a broken record but i think it'll help.
and this stuff about 'attraction switches' is really oversimplifying when it comes to male psychology. humans aren't just a set of dials and switches. this might be theoretically and experimentally useful in some fields to use such a model, but the reality isn't so nice-and-neat. as i've said elsewhere, evolutionary psychology is hotly contested.
as others have argued, we have mostly female sex workers because of eroticization of violence and domination that is part patriarchal, socially-constructed assumptions about gender hierarchy. porn or strip clubs do not prove patriarchy, that's correct. but feminist theory on this topic is a lot more complex than that. those are just a couple of examples of an all-pervasive cultural phenomenon.
femininity entailing objectification of men - indeed, this is a point that some feminist scholars have gone into. not the one to which you refer, but it is there in the feminist discourse for sure. (poststructuralist) feminists (like me) would agree that patriarchy leads to objectification of men, as well as women. this is indeed yet another reason to oppose patriarchy. these are questions that feminists do go into, in spite of your misconception to the contrary.
I think you are arguing against a strawman conception of feminism. There are plenty of enriching feminist thinkers who have enunciated everything seeming critique that you have. Foremost those like bell hooks or Judith Butler, or anyone of the myriad socialist feminist authors.
If you would confine your critique to bourgeois liberal feminism rather than feminism in toto, you'd greatly strengthen your argument.
interesting statements and ideas, as usual, the last one about ruthless quantification is a little bit complicated for me, what about this statement in homosexual relationsships,.? But nice fingernails too. But your earrings, Uh Oh,..!?
So bascially your saying patriarchy is not really patriachy if its just shadow of our natural desires? Sorry just trying to sum up your position. Could you sum it up in a sentence or two?
Sorry to tell yu this Jonathan, but you have NO CLUE whta feminism is. You are talking about general sterotypes and myths (the man hating woman, while feminism fights for men and women) that have nothing to do with feminism. Read some feminist studies and then you'll discover how much anarchy has from it.
@edehin Feminism talks about oppression related to gender (patriarchy). The oppression we face is related to mental state (psychopathy etc.). Though it is possible that those on top of the oppression pyramid tend to be of the male gender for whatever reason (which I personally don't believe), making this the focus just confuses further in a world full of confusion. It's just another giant duality that seperates us where we should unite. You can bet they are thankful.
Men have a hard time understanding that women have a superior unconscious social intelligence due to our inferior one. I dont claim to be any different, except that I had some training in the past 7 months to confirm this by observing&calibrating to some of the manifestations of that intelligence. But even w/o that calibration we can see that women have a greater investment in the sexual act & inferior strength. Not assuming that implies some psychological differences seems to me very misguided
@aaaaaaaars "Feminism is repression of male sexuality and the equivallent of repression of the female in certain arab countries and (islamic) cultures" Yeah that whole sexual revolution of the 60s was just big hoax wasn't it?
The evolution of male and female sexuality could indeed be linked to elitist social structures that occurred at some point during hunter-gatherer societies. I think this occurred when human beings developed complex-forager societies after storing food and growing land-tenure. Before this, simpler forager societies were egalitarian and less hierarchical.
This guy makes great points about modern living. But we came from a patriarchal society, and much of our identities take root from this patriarchal frame of reference we inhabited, a frame which the capitalist system also inhabits to make a buck. To boil down modern repesentations of the male/female as the function of a capitalist system utilising the most logical methods (lowest common denominator physiology) to attract customers (the porn example), is perhaps missing the bigger picture?
In fact, an even better comparison would be between men in the sex-trade industry, and highly rated male movie stars, and women in the same industries.
I agree with your general point here. However, I disagree with you on the comparison of strippers, who cater to male sexual desire, to the wage labourers that are employed in the romance novel industry. I doubt with today's modern technology, that there are that many wage labourers operating printing presses, and those jobs could easily be either male or female. Besides, a stripper is the OBJECT of male desire. Women are probably not attracted to the wage labourers who print their novels.
continued: Women's sexual attraction in this case would be focused on the fictional characters in the romance novels. So a more valid comparison would be between the real life female strippers, and the fantasy men in romance novels and soap operas, who very rarely fit the image of a wage labourer.
Just some respectful critiques from a comrade, Jonathan:
(1) We don't have to take everything Chomsky says at his word, or Foucault, or Marx , or any other thinker. In fact, I'd argue, we should relish in deconstructing their thought, pulling out what we like, jettisoning what seems to be bogus. I'd agree with Malcom X (someone I certainly have lots of disagreements with), to the contrary of Chomsky, that capitalism needs racism to flourish.
(2.) The gender binary is a form of domination; VV
it's not something separate from capitalism, the State, racism, etc. Oppression/ domination is elastic; it takes different forms. The idea that there are two binary genders has long been criticized, not just by modern feminists, but by indigenous cultures who acknowledged there were more than two genders. Hence, I find it problematic, and a little authoritarian, to talk about men and women, when there's only empirically male-bodied and female-bodied individuals; the rest is constructed...
socially. So, to talk about the way in which men and women act according to normative behaviors is regulating individuals' behaviors, much like markets, nation-states, and prisons. I find it a little reductionistic to focus on capital and the State, and to say the socialism, ie workers' control, would make everything o.k. To say a socialist economy would ameliorate forms of patriarchal oppression is, with respect, a little naive.
(3) There's a good body of research that suggests...
there are highly problematic elements of the quest for "scientists" to determine biological differences in female-bodied/ male-bodied individuals. To name a few, I would suggest the work of Carmen Schifellite, and particularly Marian Lowe and Ruth Hubbard. Hence, this idea of "biodeterminism" is highly problematic in my view.
Sorry for spamming here; just had to voice my concerns on these important issues. I think I'm gonna do a vid soon on this topic.
John... You should REALLY look into feminism, gender theory and queer theory. There are so many anti-capitalist feminists that it's not even funny. Most of them simultaneously oppose wage slavery and patriarchy.
You should REALLY deal with the specifics of the video if you don't agree with it. Repeating over and over, in video after video, that I look into feminism, not only assumes (wrongly) I haven't already, but it glosses over the specific issues I discuss.
"Placing female sexuality on a pedestal"... whoah. what the fuck does that mean? I don't have a problem with the way you break down sexuality here in the video, I like how you use "authenticity". Feminists "prove" patriarchy by looking at who's in control of the politics and capital, and thousands of years of history, family names, not being able to trace a genealogy. Feminists don't use porn to prove patriarchy. Objectification includes loss of boundary integrity.
I tried to get too much into my last comment. It's hard for women to trace their genealogy. This is evidence of patriarchy. Where does feminism say, "men should not be attracted to, or select according to attraction." I think it explores oppressive issues that arise from that.Also I've never read feminist analysis afraid to question all of it, in fact pointing out that better people choose better people in a general sense. "confidence, and humor" you listed as amoral. Whatever, you're reaching.
Feminists are male psychopath supporters. They help them repress non psychopath male sexuality and thus self esteem. Can be because they are crazy and destructive themselves, but can also be because they just have low self esteem for any reason. It's an easy way out to any female.
It deals with your mention of strippers, masculinity, objectification and patriarchy. And it hints at the analytical problems arising out of the inevitable exaltation of female sexuality that comes with critiquing masculinity and believing that "feminism isn't about dudes".
if u believe patriarchy accounts for prostitution/striptease, make a vid response refuting the position that the wage system causes harm according to exploitable qualities (e.g. more male miner/construction worker deaths/injuries due to superior male strength)--not matriarchy or patriarchy. Also u should answer the questions at the end, particularly on how female sexuality & attraction intrinsically & inevitably objectifies males by quantifying mostly amoral psychological qualities
Look dude, I have no interest in interacting with you. I find you to be condescending at best, and a sexist at worst. I'm not going to ever do a video response to you on any subject, do you understand now? I'm under no obligation to interact with you.
I feel the moral obligation to expose falsehoods, but no one on youtube has any obligation to make videos responding to challenges, even when issued by more popular channels. You have no honest reason to invent false impositions or engage in condescending ad hominem attacks. You simply know you cannot respond, and that my critique contains evidence that shines your ad hominems right back on you.
Yeah well dude, you're not exposing falsehoods, you're just harassing me with all these stupid videos expecting me to respond.
Go find someone who is dumb enough to think you'll actually be interested in discussing anything with them. I used to subscribe to you, I know how you operate.
Unlike you, I have already discussed the subject back and forth. So you seem to once again engage in psychological projection. Like many feminists, you use the word "harassment" gratuitously against men, particularly those who refute your weak arguments and expose your misandrist agenda. I'm glad you subscribed to me in the past. I can't say I ever subscribed to you.
"the position that the wage system causes harm according to exploitable qualities (e.g. more male miner/construction worker deaths/injuries due to superior male strength)" this isn't contesting poststructuralist feminism's claims about patriarchy at all. Poststructuralist feminists would argue that men are also objectified under patriarchy. Again, you really don't know what you're talking about. I'm not saying this to talk down to you, I mean it literally...you're misinformed.
and u should also address my point about the impossibility of hiring a wage laborer that can embody the psychological features that females find attractive (as compared to the easier hiring of women who stimulate the male's more visual attraction switches).
Its not her job to educate someone who shows open hostility for the subject matter. Do you not understand how ENTITLED you are acting right now? No wonder you can't understand what patriarchy is, telling women what to do and getting mad when they say no is just the way you talk to us. When a woman says NO to something, you shouldn't react by pushing it harder and telling her what points to address. Don't anarchists believe in voluntary association and cooperation?
Well, Ferguson and Chomsky hardly write about matters related to feminism or gender. Or do you mean to say I should ignore gender issues and simply concentrate on economic issues?
My comment was far less brainy. I just noticed your mystery-like transformation and commented on that. It was abusive on my part, I apologize.
Now, my suggestion would be the following: If you want us, the people that follow and like you, to consider your thoughts on gender issues, then it would be a better idea to read serious authors on the issue. Look for those who are the Chomskys in gender issues and share your readings. (P.s.: my peacocking is less notorious than yours)
lol...as if the choice is between Chomsky or Mystery. Give me a fucking break. How about actually reading some feminist scholarship, instead of arguing against some made-up strawman of feminism? In a way this is actually amusing, because you're so convinced of the rightness of your position, yet you have absolutely zero familiarity with the scholarship in the field you're criticizing. This much is obvious from what your understanding of the concepts of patriarchy and feminism is.
@pazomblez Isn't it sad that someone who knows so much about other subjects insist on carrying over his authoritative tone onto a subject about which he is clearly swallowing the status quo? :(
I agree capitalism in and of itself is morally neutral in relation to all issues that don't impact profit and market control. However, I have a slight disagreement in that moral issues and similar issues have great impact on capitalism even if those who own businesses are unaware of their influence. An increase of women in the workforce and in leadership positions will alter the way capitalism functions. Scientific research has proven that there are fundamental differences in gender psychology.
@netinfoseek If you're into muscular men with cock tattoos than go for it, hombre. I'm not telling you who you can and can not have sex with, I just think homeboy is pulling his shit off pretty well. If you don't find him pretty than there are plenty of other men whom, I'm sure, would be more than willing to call you "Nancy". Also: What's "fuking"? It sounds pretty gross and possibly Japanese.
These are exectly the questions I ask myself concerning nuclearnight's and owleyes777's (formerly antiquelens) worthwhile struggles. Possibly though you underestimate the interaction between social and political structures and the reformatting of desires and strengthening of gender roles. After all, regarding all sorts of issues, like meaning, purpose and procreation, our evolutionary history and determination can be, if not avoided, then used in ways not reducible to it, at least not simply.
I'm kinda bummed I commented on the earrings before reading the comments- and now I see a ton of people have commented on them. Didn't expect that. Keep doing your thing and looking how you want to look. Your credibility is just fine with me- with or without the earrings.
The voice of reason.....
fushapanther 4 months ago
Great video. This really helped me clarify my own thoughts on the matter as I have a few feminist friends and I feel torn as I support their goals, while at the same time often questioning their motivations for these goals. I have had discussions go in endless circles about how this be "patriarchy" while so many women benefit from the current structure. The patent answer seems to be "patriarchy hurts men too", except for one feminist who considers that an anti-feminist statement!
TheExRepublican 8 months ago
just freaking brilliant.
themaniusedtob 1 year ago 6
if hillary clinton had got into power it wouldnt mean we would have matriarchy..... thats very simplistic, its not about women or men in power its about power over! we need power from within. thats matriarchy!
OhSleeperAwake 1 year ago
I think women are sexually opressed. We are limited to erotic literature as the acceptable form of pornography for women. And it sucks. If anyone can point me in the direction of some decent porn for hetro women? Because I feel like our society just doesn't cater for female pleasure like it does for men. ps, Mr1001 you are crazy hot, and it aint the emotional appeal doin it for me, not anything about your personality either.
princessannikki 1 year ago
Wait a minute. Men are turned on by flashing a body part, but women need some kind of emotional display as a turn on? Havn't you seen male strippers? We like body parts too. And when you say "feminists think this" please don't over generalise because there are a lot of different perspectives within feminism.
princessannikki 1 year ago
@princessannikki and there are a lot of different patriarchies. Feminists were the first over-generalisers. Death to feminism!
BOOMkhopadshot 2 months ago
Racism is protectionism for the working class. - Think about it!
Kritiker9 1 year ago
@mr1001nights
I also forget about Louise Michel and Voltayrine de Cleyre
ULFHEDNNIR 1 year ago
Try also to make a (historio/sociological) of the use of the word misandry , since when it is used by who and for what purpose. I'm actually a guy who like women non alienated or stuck in a role or a posture impose to them. I work with mostly uneducated people and for those jock calling someone a girl is a insult, maybe because off a superiority complex I dont know? My sister is submissive to her husband not because of capitalism but because of culture. Sorry I hate to use my personal experience
ULFHEDNNIR 1 year ago
You should read more Emma Goldman, Alexandra Kollontaï, Christine Delphy and try to understand what they say. I was also clueless about feminism, anarchism and communism I made a effort to be objective(I know it's no possible to be completely) when reading and not hold to my believes but open my mind to their perspectives. Try a sociologic approach to those question scientific method can help too. Sorry my English isn't perfect.
ULFHEDNNIR 1 year ago
mr1001nights you are alright man
a little crazy, but alright
mastr323 1 year ago
Comment removed
pazomblez 1 year ago
right from about 30 seconds - your point about female bosses - i think shows that you misunderstand the concept of patriarchy. again, i'll reiterate what i've said elsewhere. patriarchy isn't about male bosses, or male politicians. it's not about 'men ruling women' or 'men dominating women' it's a lot more complex than that. it's about the way that our culture socially constructs gender to set up an implicit hierarchy between what is culturally 'masculine' and what is culturally 'feminine'
pazomblez 1 year ago
@pazomblez
your 'alternative explanation' doesn't dispute/refute anything that feminists (and when i say this, to be clearer, i mean poststructuralist feminism) actually are arguing. again, please read the Allan G. Johnson piece i linked you to as i think it'll clear up some of your misconceptions. i know i sound like a broken record but i think it'll help.
pazomblez 1 year ago
@pazomblez
and this stuff about 'attraction switches' is really oversimplifying when it comes to male psychology. humans aren't just a set of dials and switches. this might be theoretically and experimentally useful in some fields to use such a model, but the reality isn't so nice-and-neat. as i've said elsewhere, evolutionary psychology is hotly contested.
pazomblez 1 year ago
@pazomblez
as others have argued, we have mostly female sex workers because of eroticization of violence and domination that is part patriarchal, socially-constructed assumptions about gender hierarchy. porn or strip clubs do not prove patriarchy, that's correct. but feminist theory on this topic is a lot more complex than that. those are just a couple of examples of an all-pervasive cultural phenomenon.
pazomblez 1 year ago
@pazomblez
femininity entailing objectification of men - indeed, this is a point that some feminist scholars have gone into. not the one to which you refer, but it is there in the feminist discourse for sure. (poststructuralist) feminists (like me) would agree that patriarchy leads to objectification of men, as well as women. this is indeed yet another reason to oppose patriarchy. these are questions that feminists do go into, in spite of your misconception to the contrary.
pazomblez 1 year ago
@pazomblez
and indeed, most/all of the scholarship on objectification of men is coming out of feminist academic circles.
pazomblez 1 year ago
I think you are arguing against a strawman conception of feminism. There are plenty of enriching feminist thinkers who have enunciated everything seeming critique that you have. Foremost those like bell hooks or Judith Butler, or anyone of the myriad socialist feminist authors.
If you would confine your critique to bourgeois liberal feminism rather than feminism in toto, you'd greatly strengthen your argument.
Salt0fTheEarth 1 year ago 2
@Salt0fTheEarth no it applies to anarcha-feminism accurately
dubified89 1 year ago
@dubified89 Cite one example of an anarcha-feminist thinker living up to mr1001nights' strawman.
Salt0fTheEarth 1 year ago
FOS
dendryite 1 year ago
ahahahahahahaa you look like an idiot
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
discussed*
thececil360 1 year ago
Thank you for this insight on a topic I rarely find talked about.
thececil360 1 year ago
interesting statements and ideas, as usual, the last one about ruthless quantification is a little bit complicated for me, what about this statement in homosexual relationsships,.? But nice fingernails too. But your earrings, Uh Oh,..!?
brentisone 1 year ago
I have to agree with Alexopolux.
Sepero1 1 year ago
So bascially your saying patriarchy is not really patriachy if its just shadow of our natural desires? Sorry just trying to sum up your position. Could you sum it up in a sentence or two?
FriendOregon 1 year ago
This is a weak critique.
jgolowka 1 year ago
you changed your look :)). what's up with the ear rings and all that black on your fingers ?
Menace3434 1 year ago
Dude you own.
CorrbriasReloaded 1 year ago
Sorry to tell yu this Jonathan, but you have NO CLUE whta feminism is. You are talking about general sterotypes and myths (the man hating woman, while feminism fights for men and women) that have nothing to do with feminism. Read some feminist studies and then you'll discover how much anarchy has from it.
edehin 1 year ago 2
@edehin Feminism talks about oppression related to gender (patriarchy). The oppression we face is related to mental state (psychopathy etc.). Though it is possible that those on top of the oppression pyramid tend to be of the male gender for whatever reason (which I personally don't believe), making this the focus just confuses further in a world full of confusion. It's just another giant duality that seperates us where we should unite. You can bet they are thankful.
aaaaaaaars 1 year ago
@edehin
Where in the video do i say the man hates the woman?
mr1001nights 1 year ago
Men have a hard time understanding that women have a superior unconscious social intelligence due to our inferior one. I dont claim to be any different, except that I had some training in the past 7 months to confirm this by observing&calibrating to some of the manifestations of that intelligence. But even w/o that calibration we can see that women have a greater investment in the sexual act & inferior strength. Not assuming that implies some psychological differences seems to me very misguided
mr1001nights 1 year ago
capitalism isnt trying to do anything to you... capitalism just IS
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
Also, feminists are actually encouraging objectification because if the inside aint pretty all that's left is the out
aaaaaaaars 1 year ago
fascinating...
youtubep2k6 1 year ago
Feminism is repression of male sexuality and the equivallent of repression of the female in certain arab countries and (islamic) cultures
aaaaaaaars 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aaaaaaaars "Feminism is repression of male sexuality and the equivallent of repression of the female in certain arab countries and (islamic) cultures" Yeah that whole sexual revolution of the 60s was just big hoax wasn't it?
FriendOregon 1 year ago
The very last sentence is the clincher.
The evolution of male and female sexuality could indeed be linked to elitist social structures that occurred at some point during hunter-gatherer societies. I think this occurred when human beings developed complex-forager societies after storing food and growing land-tenure. Before this, simpler forager societies were egalitarian and less hierarchical.
PersianPaladin 1 year ago
This guy makes great points about modern living. But we came from a patriarchal society, and much of our identities take root from this patriarchal frame of reference we inhabited, a frame which the capitalist system also inhabits to make a buck. To boil down modern repesentations of the male/female as the function of a capitalist system utilising the most logical methods (lowest common denominator physiology) to attract customers (the porn example), is perhaps missing the bigger picture?
festyosemtex 1 year ago
This new style makes you look a Dragon Ball Z villain. I apporve.
MrSalamander7 1 year ago
In fact, an even better comparison would be between men in the sex-trade industry, and highly rated male movie stars, and women in the same industries.
mrtyles 1 year ago
I agree with your general point here. However, I disagree with you on the comparison of strippers, who cater to male sexual desire, to the wage labourers that are employed in the romance novel industry. I doubt with today's modern technology, that there are that many wage labourers operating printing presses, and those jobs could easily be either male or female. Besides, a stripper is the OBJECT of male desire. Women are probably not attracted to the wage labourers who print their novels.
mrtyles 1 year ago 2
continued: Women's sexual attraction in this case would be focused on the fictional characters in the romance novels. So a more valid comparison would be between the real life female strippers, and the fantasy men in romance novels and soap operas, who very rarely fit the image of a wage labourer.
mrtyles 1 year ago
nice hair man.
mrtyles 1 year ago
Comrade, patriarchy and wage labor are the same thing. This has nothing to do with my video that you posted this as a response to.
ChairmanNuke 1 year ago
Just some respectful critiques from a comrade, Jonathan:
(1) We don't have to take everything Chomsky says at his word, or Foucault, or Marx , or any other thinker. In fact, I'd argue, we should relish in deconstructing their thought, pulling out what we like, jettisoning what seems to be bogus. I'd agree with Malcom X (someone I certainly have lots of disagreements with), to the contrary of Chomsky, that capitalism needs racism to flourish.
(2.) The gender binary is a form of domination; VV
comradshaw 1 year ago
it's not something separate from capitalism, the State, racism, etc. Oppression/ domination is elastic; it takes different forms. The idea that there are two binary genders has long been criticized, not just by modern feminists, but by indigenous cultures who acknowledged there were more than two genders. Hence, I find it problematic, and a little authoritarian, to talk about men and women, when there's only empirically male-bodied and female-bodied individuals; the rest is constructed...
comradshaw 1 year ago
socially. So, to talk about the way in which men and women act according to normative behaviors is regulating individuals' behaviors, much like markets, nation-states, and prisons. I find it a little reductionistic to focus on capital and the State, and to say the socialism, ie workers' control, would make everything o.k. To say a socialist economy would ameliorate forms of patriarchal oppression is, with respect, a little naive.
(3) There's a good body of research that suggests...
comradshaw 1 year ago
there are highly problematic elements of the quest for "scientists" to determine biological differences in female-bodied/ male-bodied individuals. To name a few, I would suggest the work of Carmen Schifellite, and particularly Marian Lowe and Ruth Hubbard. Hence, this idea of "biodeterminism" is highly problematic in my view.
Sorry for spamming here; just had to voice my concerns on these important issues. I think I'm gonna do a vid soon on this topic.
comradshaw 1 year ago
@comradshaw
1) Agree. For that reason, I deal with the specifics
2) Disagree. Not acknowledging the evidence for the differences between the sexes will at best lead to absurdity; at worse, illegitimate power.
mr1001nights 1 year ago
John... You should REALLY look into feminism, gender theory and queer theory. There are so many anti-capitalist feminists that it's not even funny. Most of them simultaneously oppose wage slavery and patriarchy.
As a feminist, I oppose both.
KenCat1337 1 year ago
@KenCat1337
You should REALLY deal with the specifics of the video if you don't agree with it. Repeating over and over, in video after video, that I look into feminism, not only assumes (wrongly) I haven't already, but it glosses over the specific issues I discuss.
mr1001nights 1 year ago
"Placing female sexuality on a pedestal"... whoah. what the fuck does that mean? I don't have a problem with the way you break down sexuality here in the video, I like how you use "authenticity". Feminists "prove" patriarchy by looking at who's in control of the politics and capital, and thousands of years of history, family names, not being able to trace a genealogy. Feminists don't use porn to prove patriarchy. Objectification includes loss of boundary integrity.
rememberthediamonds 1 year ago
I tried to get too much into my last comment. It's hard for women to trace their genealogy. This is evidence of patriarchy. Where does feminism say, "men should not be attracted to, or select according to attraction." I think it explores oppressive issues that arise from that.Also I've never read feminist analysis afraid to question all of it, in fact pointing out that better people choose better people in a general sense. "confidence, and humor" you listed as amoral. Whatever, you're reaching.
rememberthediamonds 1 year ago
You are a smart man with original ideas.
Those earrings are not smart or original.
Get your earrings in line with the rest of you.
That is all.
fluorogoat 1 year ago 7
@fluorogoat
You are a dumb man with petty ideas.
Your complaint is very dumb and unsubstantial.
It figures that you have such dumb ideas because you are a dumb person.
That is all.
catbuffalo 1 year ago
@fluorogoat the spiral plugs are just as sexy as his mind
WonderWoman200290 5 months ago
Feminists are male psychopath supporters. They help them repress non psychopath male sexuality and thus self esteem. Can be because they are crazy and destructive themselves, but can also be because they just have low self esteem for any reason. It's an easy way out to any female.
aaaaaaaars 1 year ago
@aaaaaaaars easy should be between brackets by the way. 'easy'
aaaaaaaars 1 year ago
What does this have to do with my video that you posted this as a response to?
I assume nothing,dude.
iremythpurr 1 year ago
@iremythpurr
It deals with your mention of strippers, masculinity, objectification and patriarchy. And it hints at the analytical problems arising out of the inevitable exaltation of female sexuality that comes with critiquing masculinity and believing that "feminism isn't about dudes".
But I am glad you assume nothing, gal.
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@iremythpurr
if u believe patriarchy accounts for prostitution/striptease, make a vid response refuting the position that the wage system causes harm according to exploitable qualities (e.g. more male miner/construction worker deaths/injuries due to superior male strength)--not matriarchy or patriarchy. Also u should answer the questions at the end, particularly on how female sexuality & attraction intrinsically & inevitably objectifies males by quantifying mostly amoral psychological qualities
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@mr1001nights
Look dude, I have no interest in interacting with you. I find you to be condescending at best, and a sexist at worst. I'm not going to ever do a video response to you on any subject, do you understand now? I'm under no obligation to interact with you.
iremythpurr 1 year ago
@iremythpurr
I feel the moral obligation to expose falsehoods, but no one on youtube has any obligation to make videos responding to challenges, even when issued by more popular channels. You have no honest reason to invent false impositions or engage in condescending ad hominem attacks. You simply know you cannot respond, and that my critique contains evidence that shines your ad hominems right back on you.
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@mr1001nights
Yeah well dude, you're not exposing falsehoods, you're just harassing me with all these stupid videos expecting me to respond.
Go find someone who is dumb enough to think you'll actually be interested in discussing anything with them. I used to subscribe to you, I know how you operate.
iremythpurr 1 year ago
@iremythpurr
Unlike you, I have already discussed the subject back and forth. So you seem to once again engage in psychological projection. Like many feminists, you use the word "harassment" gratuitously against men, particularly those who refute your weak arguments and expose your misandrist agenda. I'm glad you subscribed to me in the past. I can't say I ever subscribed to you.
mr1001nights 1 year ago
Iremythpurr totally rejected you dude, you're like a total loser
"Like many feminists, you use the word "harassment" gratuitously against men" Yep, passive-aggressive authoritarianism
dubified89 1 year ago
@mr1001nights
"the position that the wage system causes harm according to exploitable qualities (e.g. more male miner/construction worker deaths/injuries due to superior male strength)" this isn't contesting poststructuralist feminism's claims about patriarchy at all. Poststructuralist feminists would argue that men are also objectified under patriarchy. Again, you really don't know what you're talking about. I'm not saying this to talk down to you, I mean it literally...you're misinformed.
pazomblez 1 year ago
@iremythpurr
and u should also address my point about the impossibility of hiring a wage laborer that can embody the psychological features that females find attractive (as compared to the easier hiring of women who stimulate the male's more visual attraction switches).
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@mr1001nights
Its not her job to educate someone who shows open hostility for the subject matter. Do you not understand how ENTITLED you are acting right now? No wonder you can't understand what patriarchy is, telling women what to do and getting mad when they say no is just the way you talk to us. When a woman says NO to something, you shouldn't react by pushing it harder and telling her what points to address. Don't anarchists believe in voluntary association and cooperation?
nails3jesus0 1 year ago
@nails3jesus0
Not me, I use youtube to prevent voluntary association. And i succeed every time.
mr1001nights 1 year ago
Interesting choice of venue/appearance for this vid. Certainly it is on purpose.
Cool stuff.
trumasamune 1 year ago
Capitalism does this? Capitalism is the accumulation of goods and services in a productive society. I have no idea where this guy got his definition.
lukewarmstormed 1 year ago
Jesus Jonathan! you should better keep reading Ferguson, Friedman, Noam, etc., and not "Mystery", "Style", etc.
Alexopolux 1 year ago 4
@Alexopolux
Well, Ferguson and Chomsky hardly write about matters related to feminism or gender. Or do you mean to say I should ignore gender issues and simply concentrate on economic issues?
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@mr1001nights
My comment was far less brainy. I just noticed your mystery-like transformation and commented on that. It was abusive on my part, I apologize.
Now, my suggestion would be the following: If you want us, the people that follow and like you, to consider your thoughts on gender issues, then it would be a better idea to read serious authors on the issue. Look for those who are the Chomskys in gender issues and share your readings. (P.s.: my peacocking is less notorious than yours)
Alexopolux 1 year ago
@mr1001nights
lol...as if the choice is between Chomsky or Mystery. Give me a fucking break. How about actually reading some feminist scholarship, instead of arguing against some made-up strawman of feminism? In a way this is actually amusing, because you're so convinced of the rightness of your position, yet you have absolutely zero familiarity with the scholarship in the field you're criticizing. This much is obvious from what your understanding of the concepts of patriarchy and feminism is.
pazomblez 1 year ago
@pazomblez Isn't it sad that someone who knows so much about other subjects insist on carrying over his authoritative tone onto a subject about which he is clearly swallowing the status quo? :(
JTsmiley14 1 year ago
@JTsmiley14
indeed it is.
pazomblez 1 year ago
I agree capitalism in and of itself is morally neutral in relation to all issues that don't impact profit and market control. However, I have a slight disagreement in that moral issues and similar issues have great impact on capitalism even if those who own businesses are unaware of their influence. An increase of women in the workforce and in leadership positions will alter the way capitalism functions. Scientific research has proven that there are fundamental differences in gender psychology.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
nigga got shitcurls in his ears yo.
kamakazishark 1 year ago 2
You're looking pretty sexy in this video, homeboy.
timmysquidfingers 1 year ago
@timmysquidfingers No fuking way
.
He needs to roid up, ditch the earrings and have a big cock tattooed on his chest.
netinfoseek 1 year ago
@netinfoseek If you're into muscular men with cock tattoos than go for it, hombre. I'm not telling you who you can and can not have sex with, I just think homeboy is pulling his shit off pretty well. If you don't find him pretty than there are plenty of other men whom, I'm sure, would be more than willing to call you "Nancy". Also: What's "fuking"? It sounds pretty gross and possibly Japanese.
timmysquidfingers 1 year ago
@timmysquidfingers LOL
netinfoseek 1 year ago
I think the point about capitalism being neither patriarchal nor matriarchal is a good one. I also think he is right about the porn thing too.
.
But the earrings have got to go, maybe a small gold stud in one ear and a dangly sperm thing in the other?
netinfoseek 1 year ago
i wish men and women would stop adorning themselves with fucking paint and trinkets. you people got problems.
alovelytime 1 year ago
@alovelytime Yah I mentioned that to Johnny before but he didn’t listen to me. I think maybe it’s a sexual submissive thing?
netinfoseek 1 year ago
@alovelytime that comes from the tribal times...still our minds are there even if we live in a more advance civilization
KerickOrland 1 year ago
These are exectly the questions I ask myself concerning nuclearnight's and owleyes777's (formerly antiquelens) worthwhile struggles. Possibly though you underestimate the interaction between social and political structures and the reformatting of desires and strengthening of gender roles. After all, regarding all sorts of issues, like meaning, purpose and procreation, our evolutionary history and determination can be, if not avoided, then used in ways not reducible to it, at least not simply.
VaSavoir2007 1 year ago
I'm kinda bummed I commented on the earrings before reading the comments- and now I see a ton of people have commented on them. Didn't expect that. Keep doing your thing and looking how you want to look. Your credibility is just fine with me- with or without the earrings.
ar4216 1 year ago
@ar4216 His cred is good with me too
I just like making fun of his gayness, hehe my bad
netinfoseek 1 year ago
those earrings look painful.
ar4216 1 year ago
btw i gave you a thumbs up anyway johnny boy
netinfoseek 1 year ago
he is "peacock-ing" with all that stuff. I guess it works for him.
Chomskyan 1 year ago
@Chomskyan Peacocking, does it indicated that he catches or pitches?
netinfoseek 1 year ago
@netinfoseek hehe. btw, as someone working closely with him, I wish he would get back to bashing capitalist pigs too.
Chomskyan 1 year ago
Oh look it's mr1001girlfriends
PersianPaladin 1 year ago 2
really enjoying the male-female dynamics theme, what an endlessly interesting topic it is and you sir do it justice
RadicalSyndicate 1 year ago
@RadicalSyndicate I wish he would get back to bashing the capitalist pigs
netinfoseek 1 year ago
dude, those earrings do nothing for your credibility. sorry.
OccamsView 1 year ago
@OccamsView LOL
netinfoseek 1 year ago
They are hard to look at
dubified89 1 year ago